dotCommonweal

Vatican responds to UN report on sexual abuse.

On Wednesday, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child published a report strongly criticizing the Vatican for its handling of the sexual-abuse crisis. It hasn't gone over very well. John Allen argued that it might actually hurt the reform movement within the Catholic Church. Austen Ivereigh called the committee a "kangaroo court." (While I don't agree with everything Ivereigh has to say about the report--for example, he claims the Holy See has been a "catalyst" on abuse reform "at least since 2001"--he's catalogued its many mistakes.) Michael Sean Winters declared, "To hell with the UN." Mark Silk criticized the report for treating the Holy See as it would any other state, calling it "worse than idiotic. It's counterproductive."

Apart from that significant error, the report foolishly wades into doctrinal waters, suggesting the Vatican revise its teachings on abortion and contraception. The committee urges the Holy See to provide "family planning, reproductive health, as well as adequate counselling and social support, to prevent unplanned pregnancies." At one point the UN committee asks Rome to remove from Catholic-school textbooks "all gender stereotyping which may limit the development of the talents and abilities of boys and girls and undermine their educational and life opportunities." At another it complains that the Code of Canon Law refers to children born out of wedlock as "illegitimate." The report says that in canon law instances of sexual abuse ought to be "considered as crimes and not as 'delicts,'" seemingly ignorant of the fact that "delict" means crime. (The committee's work is so sloppy that it doesn't even seem to know where to cut off a quote: That part of the report reads, "Child sexual abuse, when addressed, has been dealt with as 'grave delicts against the moral' through confidential proceedings...")

Even when the committee bumps up against a good idea, it seems uninterested in context. For example, it asks Rome to establish "clear rules, mechanisms and procedures for the mandatory reporting of all suspected cases of child sexual abuse and exploitation to law enforcement authorities," but fails to note that the world's law-enforcement authorities are not all made in the image and likeness of North America's and Europe's. That's why some diocese--in Africa, for example--haven't implemented mandatory-reporting rules. Shouldn't a UN committee show some awareness of that?

Some of their confusions could have been cleared up with a few clicks of a mouse, or by speaking to someone who knows something about the inner workings of the church. Apparently that didn't occur to the them.

Today Vatican spokesman Frederico Lombardi, SJ, responded to the UN report, claiming that its missteps prove that the committee gave "much greater attention..to certain NGOs, the prejudices of which against the Catholic Church and the Holy See are well known." Not the most helpful formulation, especially given that some Vatican officials have dismissed the sexual-abuse scandal as a creation of an anti-Catholic press.

Still, the rest of the statement is relatively measured. Lombardi explains that the report fails to highlight several of the Vatican's recent efforts to come to terms with the scandal. It does, in fact, "welcome" some of those changes, including the creation of the Commission for the Protection of Minors and changes to Vatican City State law regarding the abuse of minors, but it has little to say about them. "Few other organizations or institutions, if any, have done as much," Lombardi claims. Maybe, but it isn't as though Rome led the charge. Bishops were shamed into action by victims and sustained media coverage of the abuse they suffered.

Lombardi also laments the committee's comments on church teaching, which "seem to go beyond its powers and to interfere in the very moral and doctrinal positions of the Catholic Church, giving indications involving moral evaluations of contraception, or abortion, or education in families, or the vision of human sexuality, in light of [the committee’s] own ideological vision of sexuality itself." Of course, he's right. And he doesn't even get into the report's errors of fact, like its assertion that because of "a code of silence imposed on all members of the clergy under penalty of excommunication, cases of child sexual abuse have hardly ever been reported to the law enforcement authorities."

The document is a mess, which is a shame because it contains legitimate criticisms that Rome needs to hear, and it could end up giving aid and comfort to curialists who still believe that the sexual-abuse crisis has been overblown by enemies of the church.

Comments

While I have not followed the reports of UN committees, this gives one great pause about their credibility. I believe it will sour the Vattican and even many moderate and libreral Catholics on other issues that it tackles when it shows such inadequacy about some basic facts and loose parameters of issues that it is somehow apprpriate for such a committee to address.

One commentator held out that this might make it more difficult for the United State to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child; I believe the US and Somalia are the only countries not to have ratified it.

And I'm concerned that the far-right Catholic folks are now going to use this to go after all of the NGOs that support the CRC.

Concerning Mark Silk's observations, you can excuse and outisder or for that matter and insider to identify the Vatican, the Holy See as having jurisdiction over bishops world wide. Irrespective of the parsing and finer points of eccliesiology, in fact, according to Vatican I,

the pope has fullfull and supreme power of jurisdiction, not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and governance of the Church dispersed throughout the world

So when it comes to how the institutional Church (and yes I do draw a distinction between these two forms of church's), handles cases of abuse, the pope i, in fact, directly in control. To argue otherwise, while technically accurate is not in practice what occurs. To test the case, a bishop cannot ordain a married man to the priesthood without Vatican permission!

I have no way of knowing how accurate were the press reports of the discussions between the UN panel and the two representatives of the Vati an who testified on Rome's behalf. The reports I heard said that those representatives argued that the Vatican could not be held responsible for instances of sexual abuse because such matters were the responsibility of the invidiual bishops.

I very much hope that's not true; if it is, it strikes me as beneath contempt for those Vatican representatives to try to place the blame on others. And if it is true that the responsibility lies with the bishops, and not with the Vatican itself, how many bishops have been removed, or otherwise disciplined, for their permissive actions that made the abuses possible? The answer, I believe, is None; and indeed one of them, Cardinal Law of Boston, found himself actually rewarded when public opinion drove him out of his archdiocese to take up residence in Rome.

Poor old Bishop Morris in Australia was dealt with severely when he appeared to be mildly stepping out of line, mostly on other matters. No wonder there are those who ask whether there may be conflicts between being a good Catholic and being a good Christian.

The timing is unfortunate because it comes at a time when the pope is reaching out in so many productive ways. I know Snap and Bishop's accountability are crying out also for Francis to do more. But they should give him some time also. No question Rome has to do more. But Francis' committes have not completed their reports yet.

While contraception is really something the church must be called on, one wonders at the UN committe getting into abortion and other issues. Perhaps they are disturbed at Francis getting so many accolades in the area of human rights. Usually the UN has been touted as the champion of people's rights. Especially the poor.

I've read the commentaries by those who criticize the report and it makes me almost sick. The UN has made a public statement on the behalf of children against a powerful international religious organization that no one else has had the courage to take to task or to hold accountable. Did the commission get some details wrong? Maybe so, as they aren't Catholic insiders. But a church that still allows men like Law and Mahoney to have positions of honor has no moral high ground on which to stand.

"...no one else has had the courage to take to task or to hold accountable." Have you been living under a rock for the past dozen years? Come on. And "Did the commission get some details wrong?" Try a lot.

By trying to dictate church teaching in areas it has absolutely no business, it undermined much of what was valid in the report.

Do you mean the comments about reproductive rights? The UN *does* have business mentioning that, as this is about the welfare of children, girl children included. Human Rights Watch has also cited the Church as denying women and girls reproductive health care in countries in which they have a lot of political influence. If you think this doesn't apply to children, then think back to the 9 year old Brazilian girl ..... http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883598,00.html

By trying to dictate church teaching in areas it has absolutely no business, it undermined much of what was valid in the report.

The Vatican chose and fought to be recognized as an independent state wih the concordant. If the Church wants to be a wordly entity and speak at the UN, it must also be prepared to have its own practices critiqued just like every other nations.

Every time the UN draws attention to human rights violations in Canada or the United States, both countries are up in arms and have similar defensive reactions. This does not mean, at all, that the UN should cease standing up and speaking for these marginalized voices nor should they cease crticizing policies that are harmful. This is, absoulutely, their role. And all states who are part of the UN agree to this kind of peer analysis.

Are those criticizing this report going to stand by the Nigerian Muslims who defend the practice of child brides as part of their religion?

Pope Francis has made it clear that he wants to get a lot of decisions removed from Vatican time-servers and handled on the local level. And those of us who are aware of the frustrations of people like bishops who sit on pins and needles waiting for Vatican discasteries to act all cheered the idea. But one issue Holy Mother has left in the lap of the locals is handling abuse charges, and look at what that got us. Now a UN agency is saying, Don't do it that way; take charge.

Of course, if all of the successors of the apostles were minimally competent...

On a much smaller point, yeah, "delict" means "crime." And "discastery" means "bureau," and if you don't believe it, look into a discastery and what will you see? -- bureaucrats. As good Catholics, we believe that the only language God understands is Latin, but the bureaucrats in Rome would save themselves and us a lot of trouble if they would use a live language that includes easily identifiable words for "crime" and "bureau" and let God hire a translator.

To put this defensive reaction in context. Canada had a similar response when the UN criticcized it for poverty and hunger. BTW, I defended the UN, in that instance as well. Eech country needs to look at how it should improve.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative cabinet fairly erupted in indignation this past week as Canada took a knock from a United Nations envoy for turning a blind eye to the poverty, inequality and, yes, the hunger in our midst.

Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq denounced UN right-to-food envoy Olivier De Schutter as “patronizing,” “ill-informed” and “academic.” Immigration Minister Jason Kenney was no less harsh. “I think this is completely ridiculous,” he said. Instead of giving Canada “political lectures,” the UN should focus on “countries where people are starving,” he suggested.

Just because the UN makes it its business to promote abortion does not mean that everyone else has to fall in step behind them. It's an open question whether abortion is a right, and the UN does not have the right to pass down diktats establishing what is right and wrong.

And to be clear, I don't blame the church for its actions in the above case. The doctrine and its implications are very clear, harsh as it may seem. This is like that old thought experiment about a town where everyone's happiness is somehow dependant on one person being (secretly) tortured endlessly. Just because the suffering of the girl is visible to us and the grave injustice cmmitted against the fetus carries no visible negative consequences does not give us the right to ignore the latter. Even in extreme cases like this.

And in any case, even if this effects children, it has no relevance to the issue of children being sexually assaulted by priests, which was the actual subject of the inquiry.

It bothers me that the UN thinks it can dictate the correct ositions on moral issues, and this bothers me even when it has nothing to do with the Vatican. As if it can decide what moral positions are acceptable to hold on abortion or contraception or anything else. And I am annoyed at liberal Catholics who are happy to see outsiders try to strongarm their church to get something they want.

People here are talking a lot about the importance of criticising the curia on abuse charges, which is fine, but that's really not what this is about. The UN is cynically trying to use this investigation as a vehicle to force the curia to make a number of doctrinal changes that are at best tangentially related.

The UN has long included abortion and contracepton under the umbrella of rights it seeks to promote, but just because they view these as rights doesn't make invalid the opinions and beliefs of those who disagree.

And the argument that these doctrinal changes will make abuse less likely misses the point. As far as I'm concerned-and the curia is concerned-it's simply a fact that abortion is wrong. This instrumental approach to ethics is as misguided as people who argue that societies that don't believe in evolution are less likely to commit genocide. And besides that I think the argument that taking a pro-choice stance will make sexual assault less likely is nonsense.

It really is the UN believing it can diktate moral truths that bothers me so much. I don't want to come off as excessively defensive of the Vatican-which does deserve harsh criticism for its handling of the abuse crisis. Again, this would bother me even if it had nothing to do with the Catholic Church.

Regarding the recommendation of the Committee on the Rights of the Child that the Catholic Chruch disavow some of it core beliefs: Committee members woud benefit from a re-reading of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights which recognizes freedom of religion.

It bothers me that the UN thinks it can dictate the correct positions on moral issues

It's not a random dictate on random morals. The Committee is there to monitor complicance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That's their definition of "moral". Of course they judge the actions of the Vatican (or of any other government) by referring to that convention rather than to the local laws. That's their job.

"a) [The Holy See] interprets the phrase `Family planning education and services' in article 24.2, to mean only those methods of family planning which it considers morally acceptable, that is, the natural methods of family planning.
"b) [The Holy See] interprets the articles of the Convention in a way which safeguards the primary and inalienable rights of parents, in particular insofar as these rights concern education (articles 13 and 28), religion (article 14), association with others (article 15) and privacy (article 16).
"c) [The Holy See declares] that the application of the Convention be compatible in practice with the particular nature of the Vatican City State and of the sources of its objective law (art. 1, Law of 7 June 1929, n. 11) and, in consideration of its limited extent, with its legislation in the matters of citizenship, access and residence."

As they say, this isn't rocket science..........The Roman Catholic Church did next to nothing to stop certain sexual abusing clergy who were preying on the most innocent of our faithful other than to move them from one location to another and put other children and young adults at risk, some of whom became additional victims of the most evil, criminal and life-destroying conduct and behavior that man is capable of on this earth. This occurred in towns, neighborhoods, cities, states, and countries around the globe and to this day, not a single religious leader, cardinal or bishop, has been held accountable for his failure to stop the physical and psychological carnage that was perpetrated on the victims and their families.

I have come to expect defensive, whiny, immature complaining from the likes of John Allen, Austen Ivereigh, Michael Sean Winters, and Mark Silk - they're as close to a Catholic Taliban as you'll ever find.

But really, Grant Gallicho, try to remember you're a journalist, with a supposed commitment to the truth, and exposing corruption among the powerful. Commonweal should be leading the charge-up Vatican hill with the portraits of survivors as the children they were when they were assaulted emblazened on their chests.

OK, so the UN Committee does not speak clericalese. And, for sure the UN Committee doesn't appreciate all the nuance of all the pontificating coming out of the Vatican about all the lessons the church has learned just recently about the rape, sodomy and exploitation of children by priest and bishops. Yahda, Yahda Yahda ...

And yes, the UN may be inadequate to the job. And let's stipulate that it is by no means a perfect arbitor of justice.

Yet, the UN Committee has it a lot closer to right about clerical sex abuse and exploitation - and its systemic roots in Catholic clerical culture and praxis - than any bloviating Catholic hierarch has ever demonstrated!!!

From my own experience on the SF review board, I have a suspicion that what really rankles the Vatican hierarchs is not the criticism of its doctrine and pastoral practice - something tells me that after 2 millennia the Catholic Church has pretty tough skin over that bone . Rather what really stings the Vatican is that the two hierarchs sent to Geneva [Tomasi & Sicluna] received a public tongue lashing by a WOMAN [Kristen Sandberg] no less - Oh the horror! I'm sure that there are many hierarchs who rue the day when they approved having all those nuns teach women even how to read and write.

[Now Cardinal Levada told me that the CDC - read Ratzinger - objected to women serving on diocesan review boards because "lay people, especially women" should never be in a position of exercising "authority" over a cleric. True, so help me God!]

What's wrong with representatives of the very world body that was instituted - after the devastation of two world wars which sacrificed over 100 million human deaths and casualties on the altar of war and crimes of genocide - to safeguard human rights and dignity, peace and justice to call the Vatican to account for its crimes against humanity, against mostly defenseless children???

Give me a break! For all you United Nations nitpickers on this blog stream - you know who you are - get a life. All Catholics should be rejoicing with our brother and sister survivors who have just received a small modicum of justice. Thank you, Jesus!

I have a suggestion for your reading pleasure and personal edification: The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Would that these words come from the mouths of the hierarchs! And better still, when will we see Catholic hierarchs adopt these principles of human rights? Until that time, we should all stuff the indignation over the UN's albeit feeble attempts to hold the church to account for its abject moral depravity. Read it and weep for the sins of the church.

the likes of John Allen, Austen Ivereigh, Michael Sean Winters, and Mark Silk - they're as close to a Catholic Taliban as you'll ever find

This is... a kooky statement? I dunno--I think that John Allen is mealy-mouthed, and that Michael Sean Winters is unreadable. But taliban? And how on earth is someone like Mark Silk, who I think is one of the sharpest observers of American religion, grouped with that cohort? Pretty sure he's in the tribe, anyhow.

In general, I have no quarrel with any part of Grant's comments. But perhaps it is useful to recognize that this specific issue, in the form in which it has arisen, has roots in the veery peculiar entity that Vatican State. It is both a political entity, like other states. The pope has sovereign political power over it. But it is also the center of the Catholic religious community that includes citizens of many other civil states. Again, the pope is the supreme authority in the Catholic Church.

Catholics around the world thus live in two realms, each of which makes claims on their conduct. It's not surprising that there is a long history of political leaders trying to get religious leaders to support the policies and laws they have established. Nor has there been any shortage of attempts by preligious leaders to get civil leaders to provide advantages or immunities for their Catholic subjects.

When the Catholic leaders in question are also citizens of the civil statethese tensions can be more or less managed through constitutions and civil laws. Note though that these tensions have never been wholly eliminated. They are usua;;u managed rather than being definitively resolved. When, however, one of the parties, here the pope, is not a citizen of the state involved, it is no surprise that therre will be some struggle between the civil and religious leaders to prevail. This is a constant version of Gelasius's "two-sword" insight. Who is to preavil, pope or emperor?

In some sense, the U. N. was set up to prevent or defuse serious conflicts betseen civil states. It has no good way of dealing withconflicts between civil states and the pope in his exercise of his spiritual authority. It only knows how to deal with him as a head of Vatican State, a state that has been an active participant in U. N. Conventions, treaties, etc.

For my part, I don't see any clear way to avoid such conflicts between the papacy and civil authorities. When they dio arise, both sides ought to seek a modus vivendi rather than to prevail.

I don't know about the other writers, but Austen Ivereigh is anything but an objective journalist. He works for Catholic Voices, a PR group connected to Opus Dei and created when B16 visited the Uk in order to publically promote conservative Catholic views .... http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100128028/opus-dei-and-... ... even before he worked for them, and though he did work for The Tablet, his work was very one sided.

"It's not a random dictate on random morals. The Committee is there to monitor complicance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That's their definition of "moral". Of course they judge the actions of the Vatican (or of any other government) by referring to that convention rather than to the local laws. That's their job."

Fine. Then the Vatican has no reason more reason to take that criticism seriously than they do any other criticsim from outside.

And this also puts the Convention on the Rights of the Child into question. A lot of people mock the United States for being one of only three states that haven't signed it, but if it gives the UN the last word on thorny moral issues where many of their citizens are in disagreement with the UN then of course the US shouldn't sign it. Frankly, if the rules of that convention in any way require support for abortion than the Vatican should withdraw its signature.

And why should pro-lifers support something that blatantly goes against they're principles? Why is it treated as a black mark against them?

A lot of people are saying this. The language that the Vatican documents are written in can be obscure to be sure, but to have to make this excuse for a committee working for an organization as presitgous as the UN, a committee specifically tasked with investgating the Vatican, is just ridiculous. Would the UN send investigators to Iran who didn't speak Farsi. Besides legal document are always difficult to parse.

Warren: How do you work for human rights in the world? You can try flexing your muscles and going to war, like the US has done in Iraq (to bring democracy to the Iraqi people - that was a stated original goal) and Afghanistan (to liberate women from the Taliban oppression), but if you do not like that, what alternative is there to agreeing to some compromise, and then holding people to it via international law?

It's not that long. What article do you object to on behalf of the Vatican or of the US? Is it

Article 29

1. States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to:

... (d) The preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin;

or

Article 24

1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health. States Parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to such health care services.

2. States Parties shall pursue full implementation of this right and, in particular, shall take appropriate measures:

(a) To diminish infant and child mortality;

(b) To ensure the provision of necessary medical assistance and health care to all children with emphasis on the development of primary health care;

(c) To combat disease and malnutrition, including within the framework of primary health care, through, inter alia, the application of readily available technology and through the provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking-water, taking into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution;

(e) To ensure that all segments of society, in particular parents and children, are informed, have access to education and are supported in the use of basic knowledge of child health and nutrition, the advantages of breastfeeding, hygiene and environmental sanitation and the prevention of accidents;

(f) To develop preventive health care, guidance for parents and family planning education and services.

What the US object to, I think, is

Article 37

States Parties shall ensure that:

(a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age;

Would you prefer to let countries each follow their own customs without outside interference, or to have international law putting limits on how they treat chidren, up to compromising and having to give up on capital execution of minors in the US, or to have the US rule the world as we have done so convincingly in the past decade to make a better world for Iraqis and Afghans?

As to abortion, the report I think was objecting to the sorry case of the nine-year old girl in Brazil who found herself pregnant with twins as a result of rape and incest, a non-viable pregnancy, who had an abortion, and whose mother and doctor were excommunicated by the local bishop while the father (the girl's father who was also the twins' father) was not.

"While it's true that the report did take a (welcome) wide view of the sex-abuse scandal, the problem, if you want to call it a "problem," is not that it's biased against the church. It's that it's biased in favor of human rights and the well-being of adolescents and children. This is a human rights committee. When Catholic doctrine comes into conflict with human rights, it is the U.N.'s job to prioritize human rights. Since this is children we're talking about here, it's especially important that the U.N. not hold back on their support for human rights to protect the sensitivities of the Vatican."

I don't think moral opposition to abortion conflicts with human rights and I don't think one can really minimize the inappropriateness of the UN Committee urging the Vatican to change its beliefs on this issue.

What is frustrating to people who would really like to be supportive of the UN CRC is that the gratutitous recommendations vis-a-vis abortion undermine the very real,very important, findings re: the Church's inadequate response to the sex abuse crisis.

I don't think the UN is trying to make the Catholic Church change its belief on abortion, but is trying to change the way the Church tries to enforce its belief. Most (all?) Christian denominations are against abortion but most allow people to do what their consciences tell them. Also they don't run hospitals or faith-based NGOs that deny women care, as the Catholic Church does.

I think the UN Committee raised very serious issues, including those of contraception and certain difficult pregnancies where the mothers life is at risk, which deserve a serious and collaborative response. The often dismissive response from the Church is not a good sign of a healthy organisation prepared to seriously dialogue and to consider criticism. It is not a good way to present the Church as open and honest. We had a change to respond positively but unfortunately it seems we have blown it.

Crystal, allowing people to do what their conscience tells them normally does not extend to taking another person's life -- except in abortion. Our laws have now cloaked this as a "private" decision, but the Catholic Church, rightly, regards it as a matter that cannot be relegated to the purely private sphere because the unborn child is a human being in his or her own right and not merely an appendage of the mother. That child's life is being terminated by a willful intervention, no matter how "private" that may be it has public consequences. The very extraordinary circumstances under which such an action might possibly be justified -- which you allude to above -- are hardly the limit to what is being proposed here. If the same commission were to simultaneously enjoin all countries to stop "abortion on demand" because they want to protect the child in the womb in all but the most unusual cases, their call for the Catholic Church to change its stand might have some more weight. But the assumption that the termination of life in the womb is a private affair and matter of sovereign individual conscience is a philosophical one and it is not being challenged here as far as I can tell. What is being challenged is the right of the Church to uphold its position.

Jim McCrea writes; "As far as I am concerned, the distinction between "The Vatican" and "The Holy See" is a legal subterfuge that tries to create a distinction where there is virtually no difference."

Crystal Watson writes: I don't think the UN is trying to make the Catholic Church change its belief on abortion, but it is trying to change the way the Church tries to enforce its belief."

Re McCrea: If you are trying to refeer to my distinction between the Church and the Vatican State, I must object to your calling that distinction a "legal subterfuge." I am a Catholic, but I am not a citizen of the Vatican State. I am subject to the civil and criminal laws of the US and the penalties they impose. I am not subject to the laws of the Vatican State as such. If those laws repeat Canon Law provisions that are applicable to all Catholice, then I am subject to them , but only because they are part of Canon law. Therre is no "legal subterfuge" here.

Re Watson: The Catholic Church tries to "enforce" its belief about abortion by preaching, exhortation, and, in some cases, through canonical penalties. The UN, and anybody else, is free to criticize both the Church's beliefs and its ways of "enforcing" them. But why should the Church have to have the UN's, or anyone else's approval for its beliefs and practices? Would you make the UN some sort of dictator of what is acceptable religious practice?

Though I vigorously disagree with these two passages that I cite, I'm glad to have the opportunity to emphasize again the importance in such matters of thinking clearly and making approopriate distinctions. Otherwise, there is sheer confusion, if not outright nonsense.

"I don't think the UN is trying to make the Catholic Church change its belief on abortion, but is trying to change the way the Church tries to enforce its belief. Most (all?) Christian denominations are against abortion but most allow people to do what their consciences tell them."

Free practice requires the right to enforce beliefs. Old Congregationalist churches wouldn't even let people in unless they were extremely sure that the person was saved. If they had any reason to believe you were damned you weren't allowed in, and people weren't even allowed in until a certain age because there was no way to tell if a young child was saved or not.. I don't think any do that now, and I certainly wouldn't want my church doing that, but it would be way out of line for any government or NGO to tell them they couldn't do that.

I don't think you inderstood what I meant. We are talking about 2 things here"

1) the right to believe and to preach and advocate for the idea that abortion is wrong

2) the right to withhold medical care from women, medical care which our pluralistic and democratic society has determined is legal

I *do* think the church has the right to #1 and so foes the UN.

But the church does more than this because it is involved in charity work like with human trafficking, and in relief work like helping AIDS patients in other countries, and in medical care as it runs hospitals. The church uses the power it has in these venues to force people to adhere to its views, even people who are not Catholic. When it soes that, it tramples on their rights, and sometime it costs people their lives. I think it is this area that the UN is addressing.

If you think the church has the right to do this, try to imagine the Jahovah's Winesses running the only hospital in your town and you needing a blood transfusion. Would their "religious liberty" trump your right to a legal procedure that could save your life?

PS - and I'm not saying that the church should be forced to offer those procedures it finds wrong, but if it will not offer all the legal medical remedies that a patient has a right to and a need for, I don't the church should be in reproductive health care.

" I'm not saying that the church should be forced to offer those procedures it finds wrong, but if it will not offer all the legal medical remedies that a patient has a right to and a need for, I don't the church should be in reproductive health care.'

Crystal --

Let's say that your nice neighbor is a widow with 6 kids. She isn't poor, but she definitely needs to get away from them sometimes. So in your kindness you offer to mind her kids two Saturdays each month. Do you think it's her right to say demand of you, "But I also need time off on some Sundays. You owe me that"? Should she reject your help because you can't or won't do everything she wants?

If your answer is no, why shouldn't the Church offer some health care to some women but not offer all the services that are called "health care"?

You are talking about one person doing a favor for another person - something that person has no actual right to. But Catholic hospitals are not charities, they are businesses, and every person has a *right* to adequate and complete medical care.

"Warren: How do you work for human rights in the world? You can try flexing your muscles and going to war, like the US has done in Iraq (to bring democracy to the Iraqi people - that was a stated original goal) and Afghanistan (to liberate women from the Taliban oppression), but if you do not like that, what alternative is there to agreeing to some compromise, and then holding people to it via international law?"

The UN gets its authority from the military strength of some of its member states, and I suppose from its ability to give and withhold aid. There is no authority higher than the UN to hold states accountable to agreements they sign with the UN, so the contracts don't have any force on their own without certain member states enforcing them through military and economic power. I don't think these UN agreements are really an "alternative" to coercion by powerful states at all. In fact, Bush was able to present Saddam as a lawbreaker and a renegade specifically because Saddam had ignored the United Nations, so presenting UN agreementsand strongarm military action as two seperate alternatives for global governance seems to miss the mark. One will often lead to the other, I think.

"Would you prefer to let countries each follow their own customs without outside interference, or to have international law putting limits on how they treat chidren, up to compromising and having to give up on capital execution of minors in the US, or to have the US rule the world as we have done so convincingly in the past decade to make a better world for Iraqis and Afghans?"

I would definitively pick the first option. Protecting human rights serves as too convenient a pretext for stomping all over the rights of autonomy and self-rule.

Diplomatically, the Holy See acts and speaks for the whole church. It is also recognized by other subjects of international law as a sovereign entity, headed by the Pope, with which diplomatic relations can be maintained.

Often incorrectly referred to as "the Vatican", the "Holy See" is not the same entity as the "Vatican City State", which came into existence only in 1929 because of the Lateran Treaty; the Holy See, the episcopal see of Rome, dates back to early Christian times. Ambassadors are officially accredited not to the Vatican City State but to "the Holy See", and papal representatives to states and international organizations are recognized as representing the Holy See, not the Vatican City State.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See)

I doubt that 1 in 10,000 Catholics throughout the world understand or care about this almost arcane distinction. It borders on smoke and mirrors.

I have to agree that, of the 16 pages report, only the part about abortion is being discussed. Nevertheless, let me contribute further to this by copying the three paragraphs where the word "abortion" occurs. Do you all really think that for a Catholic, the paragraphs below are as preposterous as you all seem to intimate, and against your Catholic sense of morals? (That's not what dotC commenters seemed to think 4 years ago, see https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/more-excommunication-miscommunications ... but is it only us who should be free to criticize, not the UN?)

54. The Committee expresses its deepest concern that in the case of a nine-year old girl in Brazil who underwent an emergency life-saving abortion in 2009 after having been raped by her stepfather, an Archbishop of Pernambuco sanctioned the mother of the girl as well as the doctor who performed the abortion, a sanction which was later approved by the head of the Roman Catholic Church’s Congregation of Bishops.

55. The Committee urges the Holy See to review its position on abortion which places obvious risks on the life and health of pregnant girls and to amend Canon 1398 relating to abortion with a view to identifying circumstances under which access to abortion services can be permitted.

57. With reference to its general comments No. 15 (2013) on the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health, No. 4 (2003) on adolescent health and No.3 (2003) on HIV/AIDS and the rights of the child, the Committee reminds the Holy See of the dangers of early and unwanted pregnancies and clandestine abortion which result notably in high maternal morbidity and mortality in adolescent girls, as well as the particular risk for adolescents girls and boys to be infected with and affected by STDs, including HIV/AIDs. The Committee recommends that the Holy See :

(a) Assess the serious implications of its position on adolescents’ enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and overcome all the barriers and taboos surrounding adolescent sexuality that hinder their access to sexual and reproductive information, including on family planning and contraceptives, the dangers of early pregnancy, the prevention of HIV/AIDS and the prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs);

(b) Place adolescents’ best interests at the centre of all decisions affecting their health and development and of the implementation of policies and interventions that affect the underlying determinants of their health;

(c) Ensure the right of adolescents to have access to adequate information essential for their health and development and for their ability to participate meaningfully in society. In this respect, the Holy See should ensure that sexual and reproductive health education and prevention of HIV/AIDS is part of the mandatory curriculum of Catholic schools and targeted at adolescent girls and boys, with special attention to preventing early pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections;

(d) Guarantee the best interests of pregnant teenagers and ensure that the views of the pregnant adolescent always be heard and respected in the field of reproductive health;

(e) Actively contribute to the dissemination of information on the harm that early marriage and early pregnancy can cause and ensure that Catholic organizations protect the rights of pregnant children, adolescent mothers and their children and combat discrimination against them; and

(f) Take measures to raise awareness of and foster responsible parenthood and sexual behaviour, with particular attention to boys and men.

I realize that many on this blog stream are tintilated by the UN CRC challenging the Catholic Church's teachings and policies on abortion in so dramatic fashion in a public forum. Given the constant anti-feminine ideological drumbeat coming out of the Vatican for decades, I'm certainly not surprised that this is a stumbling block to many.

HOWEVER, this is blog stream is sourced in media reports about the church's reaction to being called to account for its horrible record of sexual assault and exploitation of children and the complicity of its hierarchs, and their abject failure to forthrightly address the gaping wounds left by the crimes of priests and bishops.

This discussion is more rightly on the survivors, and their quest for justice and reconciliation.

After closely reading the report, I'm confident that the UN CRC report was trying to contextualize their critique of the Catholic Church's response to the sexual abuse of children by priest by identifying specific elements in Catholic culture and pastoral practice that contributed to [still contribute to] and underwrite this abuse.

Hence, the discussion about the church's teachings surrounding contraception and abortion. I believe that the UN CRC was trying to identify the radical ideology of the Catholic Church which undergrids its lame and criminal response to the assault on children by priests and bishops.

Don't look for, or expect, the Catholic hierarchy to engage in any honest examination of its dominant hegemonic clerical culture. If the Catholic hierarchy wont do it, then by default the hierarchy has actually invited institutions like the UN to do the hard work of trying to dismantling its anti-feminine ideology and feudal patriarchal oligarchy.

The Catholic hierarchy better get use to being labelled anti-human rights. As Bob Dylan once sang:

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.

N.B.: This mornings Washington Post article gives some pretty interesting insights into how attitudes are shifting in and among Catholic populations around the world: